Sean Manzelli Upon considering whether the Constitution in its current form should be ratified,

Though both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson served as members of President Washington’s cabinet, the two held very different views on the newly founded U.S. government, interpretation of its constitution, and the role of the “masses” in that government. These conflicting views would develop in two political parties, the Federalists led by Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson. Although both political parties presented enticing aspects, Hamilton’s views were much more reasonable and fruitful when compared Jefferson’s views; idealistic and too strict in reference to the constitution.

For example state governments give an excess amount of power toward the people; which can backfire due to how selfish and uneducated people were at the time. Another major problem with having too much state power is it can break us and it can turn America into 13 states instead of one powerful country. Having a strong effective national government will stop disputes between states; forming an overall nationwide power and unity. Even though Hamilton wasn’t born in America, he still wished to see his adopted country become a powerful

Whether or not to ratify the Constitution was one of the greatest controversies in American history. This constitution set the framework for a new stronger government unlike the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was known as America’s first ‘weak’ government. These Articles were passed to provide authority to the Continental Congress on a legal basis. Even though, they had already been exercising this power, they wanted something so they wouldn’t be questioned when regulating trade and creating taxes.

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

“…thirteen powerful, independent, disunited States are in the habit off…refusing to obey our national Congress…I pray that we can act in time to prevent the bad things we fear may happen.” George Washington wrote this in a letter to John Jay (Doc 3). Even the man who is immediately thought of when talking about the start of our nation thought that without a new set of guidelines to run our country by, the young country would eventually break apart and the fighting of the higher powers would begin again. The reasons George thought this way was because of how week the Articles of Confederation actually were, also because all the different foreign problems that the country as a whole faced, and another big

Should the constitution be ratified? In this case i’m on the federalist side. I picked the federalist side because ratify the constitution will empower and establish our federal government. Another reason why I picked the federalist side is that the weak central government of the Articles of Confederation needs to be strengthened. The first argument the federalist should use to convince the public that ratifying the proposed constitution does not threaten Americans natural rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence is the federal courts have limited sovereignty, leaving many areas of the law to the state and local courts.

In 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in hopes of revising the Articles of Confederation before the new, established country would become unsustainable. The Articles of Confederation had failed the country as the central government was not strong enough to uphold the country and protect the people’s rights. They were then abandoned and the Founding Fathers began to draft a new government system, what we now know as the US Constitution. At the time the dilemma was, should the Constitution be ratified? The Constitution should be ratified considering that it averts abuse of power, is effective in regulation, and is in the interest of the people.

The United States would lose its name and stand divided if the Constitution did not bring the thirteen colonies into one body. Within this governing body, fears arise from the difficulty of controlling power in a central government, while still trying to keep unity between the states. Understanding that the United States was formed based on the people’s irritation with the corruption of the control of power in England, the Constitution reassured the people that their freedoms were going to be kept, but it required their trust. The founders of the United States Constitution established a just government through encompassing equal representation, with the people as the foundation, and protecting the injustices that could arise with the misuse of power.

Throughout American history the constitution has been the framework for democracy. Written in 1787, the constitution was a great conception for the thirteen colonies. Now two-hundred and twenty-eight years later the United States is not a county of freedom fighting European-Americans. In this diverse and modern society concerns have come to surface as to whether the constitution should be ratified for the future to come. Ratifying the constitution sounds like a good notion, but is nearly impossible to do. I believe the constitution should stand as is but allow another document arise that corrects the loop holes of the constitution.

Right now a debate is occurring about whether or not we should ratify the Constitution. This is an important moment in our countries history.It is important to our countries history because if we ratify the Constitution the Executive branch would have all of the power. If we didn 't ratify the Constitution the states would have power. The proposed Constitution would give the Executive branch the right to tax the American citizens and the states wouldn 't be able to say no to it. My position is an Anti-Federalist.

Right now a debate is accruing about weather or not we should ratify the constitution. This is an important moment in our country history because if we ratify the constitution it could make our country better or make it worse.We are at a crossroads in the history of our country. The Articles of Confederation are not working. They give the states too much power and are too weak. We can not pay our debts as a nation.The proposed Constitution would give us a strong government so that we can rise money through taxes. It could create a strong system of representatives. For these reasons I think we should ratify the Constitution.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in 1787, the United States just had 13 states. The Founding Fathers believed that more states would want to join the Union in the future. They saw that it would be significant for new states to have the same form of government as the original states had. Since then there are now over 50 states that have similar characteristics which were developed centuries ago; although, resembling the creation of new ideas and inventions, current state government had many problems from being the way it is today, it also has many important features that benefit many people, as well as plays an important role in how American democracy and government works.

The Articles of Confederation had a weak central government. Alexander Hamilton believed that the more powerful state governments would take over. In Federalist Paper 16, he states that the death of the confederacy would be the result of the lack of a large national defense. Hamilton says the government should have control over the individual as well as the states so that the government can protect the “hopes and fears” of the individuals. Government is important to the unity of its country, and Hamilton claims that no government can always avoid or control those who will be disorderly, but it would be “vain to hope to guard against events too mighty for human foresight or precaution, and it would be idle to object to a government because it

James Madison stated, “In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce.” In my conclusion the Constitution used the Articles of Confederation to establish a stronger central government where each state had individual views and maintained various lifestyles of citizens which continuously delayed ratification. However, the flexibility of the constitution led to many debates which in the end resulted in the establishment of an acceptable

In the current situation of making a decision whether to ratify or not ratify the Constitution, the Constitution should not be ratified. Due to serious problems and issues that could arise, and the problems and issues experienced in the past under the British parliament, the Constitution should not be passed and the Articles of Confederation should be kept to keep a strong state government. Issues like being under complete under control, favoring the wealthy, and having no rights should be corrected.